ADDED: The mainstream media are using a tactic reminiscent of grade school, alpha kids spreading the idea nobody likes this one kid. Not even for any particular reason. Just: Ew, nobody likes him. Hoping to influence the beta kids. Probably succeeding!

There is no substance to this report. It's another appeal to women voters.

Do you see that dull, boring guy in the bed next to you? You know, the guy that's too tired at the end of the day for any fun. The guy that becomes upset when you spend too much money on frivolous things. Would you put him in the White House?

Obama got 53% of the vote in 2008 right? Does anyone think he will match that or improve on it? No he won't so how could he be up by 5% or 6% or 8% in states he barely won in 2008? How could he be getting killed in Indiana, a state he won in 2008?

Just for starters, I NEVER pay attention to anything that wide-eyed weasel Mike Allen, he of the constantly surprised look visage, says--a smarmier example of journOlist mind-set would be hard to find..

One thing is that if you ever have a massive failure right before people choose between keeping you or hiring someone new, that never goes well for you. When your mistake leads to people -dying-, it is even less likely they'll keep you around.

So, honestly, things should be a lot worse for Obama than they are. So, there's that. Either he's a great candidate, Romney is doing really bad, or people are just numb to politics, maybe? A lot of possibilities out there.

This is the opposite of a back-handed compliment -- criticism that's intended to be praise. I don't buy it. I don't think that presidents are politicians on the campaign trail and CEOs in the oval office. Romney is a lousy candidate because he is a lousy politician, and being a lousy politician would make him a lousy president as well.

He does seem like a talented manager though. Maybe Obama should appoint him head of Health and Human Services, to implement Obamneycare.

He's such a lousy politician he managed to get a compromise health care plan passed in one of the most liberal of states that managed to be successful until he left, oversaw lowering unemployment rates and tentatively united multiple factions within the Republican party.

Lousy politicians are always securing amazing compromises and unifying disparate party elements. That ability to succeed is what makes them giant failures. If only Romney could ensure even his own party rejected his budget plan unanimously in Congress, then he'd be a great politician.

It may not be fair, but Romney is in trouble. Right before the "47%"tape surfaced, Obama jumped from around 60% to 65% at Intrade. Obama recently had another big jump and is now at 78% at Intrade, higher than the present polls warrant. My guess is the someone is trading on information that hasn't surfaced.

Obama doesn't have a lock on Ohio, but he's doing very well there (that's one place where the auto bailout has been a net advantage for BO) and it is smart to keep the pressure up there as Romney will do all he can to carry that State.

Yes, Romney won the GOP nomination but if was by default, after a series of non Romneys flaked out. If most people in the GOP aren't excited about Romney, how can you expect the whole country to be?

"If most people in the GOP aren't excited about Romney, how can you expect the whole country to be? "

I disagree with your premise that most people in the GOP aren't excited about Romney. The turnouts at his campaign events are evidence enough that there is much excitement. The fact that he is neck and neck in Dem-skewed polls is also evidence.

But frankly, I think a ton of people are going to pull the lever for him, not because they are excited about him, but because everything is going to crap and most of them realize that Obama is full of more crap when he says he is going to create, what 12 million jobs?

"Because he's doing to the GOP what Bain did to companies it took over...move in, bleed em dry, move on..."

Funny, I think what he did with the Olympics is more in line with what he is doing now. And yes, Dems are worried, what with all these gaffes and bad weeks Romney has had and he is still tied with Barry in D+6 and 9 and 11 polls.

"+8 percent unemployment. <1.5 percent GDP growth -$4,000 in median income. +15 million in new food stamp recipients. $4/gallon gasoline. +$5 Trillion in new debt. U.S. Ambassador murdered. Al Qaeda flag flying over U.S embassy. Aimless in Afghanistan. And he . . . goes on the View? This is not a serious man. In love with being President but utterly clueless when it comes to actually governing, leading the country. A failure in the job by ANY measure. 40 days to decide. What are you gonna do?"

I'm sure you'd agree that it is possible to overpay for poor results. This is what Romney is doing. Math tells us that, as of now, BHO's campaign is more efficient (less dough/more accomplished) and effective(winning).

R's campaign needs to be turned around. Lucky for him that's his expertise. Soon enough we'll see if he's as great as his supporters claim.

When I was trying to find a traffic report this morning, I happened to hear Snuffelufagus and a reporterette opining that the debates will be key for Romney to dispel the "the fact of how very strange he is."

"I'm sure you'd agree that it is possible to overpay for poor results. This is what Romney is doing. Math tells us that, as of now, BHO's campaign is more efficient (less dough/more accomplished) and effective(winning)."

You're going to have to explain to me how they are being more effective. Frankly, I'd give more, if not all of the credit for any positive poll numbers for Barry to the media, which is overwhelmingly in the tank for him, than his own campaign.

Romney is tied with Barry and he is fighting more than just a on the ground campaign battle.

It'd be much more convincing if this was late October, not late September. Romney has gone nonstop the last few months, and much longer given the primary season.

Given that the press utterly ignores him --- except to poorly edit audio of an appearance where he tried to change the chants from "Romney!" to "Romney - Ryan!" --- it's easy to suspect he isn't doing much.

This is the opposite of a back-handed compliment -- criticism that's intended to be praise. I don't buy it. I don't think that presidents are politicians on the campaign trail and CEOs in the oval office. Romney is a lousy candidate because he is a lousy politician, and being a lousy politician would make him a lousy president as well.

Romney is almost irrelevant at this point. He can't be any worse than Obama. What we defeat, defeating Obama in this election is the corrupt media which does not help the public and in fact is harming the welfare of the general public by misinformation and hiding information. That never works toward building a thriving democracy. Fuck the media and defeat it, vote Romney for that reason if not anything else.

I'll tell you one thing Romney is doing - he is aiding his party. He is helping other Republicans who are running and organizing them. That can't be mentioned by WMM* because Obama is not aiding Democrats. I expect when the Republicans win the election that they will leave the starting block as an organized unified team, everyone knowing what to do and being willing to do it and knowing how the media will lie.

*(WMM = White Mice Media - they know how to press the buttons and run the mazes to get food)

"ADDED: The mainstream media are using a tactic reminiscent of grade school, alpha kids spreading the idea nobody likes this one kid. Not even for any particular reason. Just: Ew, nobody likes him."

Not for any particular reason -- except maybe that he said 47% of the country can't be convinced to take responsibility for their lives.

And if you consider yourself part of the 47% and find that comment to turn you off from Romney over to Obama, then Romney's point stands - you were never going to vote for him anyway, and now you have your specious "reason" for not doing so.

But yes, if only mean old Mitt hadn't made people feel bad, all the Peggy Josephs and "Obama Phone!" parasites in the country would be voting for him. . .

"+8 percent unemployment.<1.5 percent GDP growth-$4,000 in median income.+15 million in new food stamp recipients.$4/gallon gasoline.+$5 Trillion in new debt.U.S. Ambassador murdered.Al Qaeda flag flying over U.S embassy.Aimless in Afghanistan.And he . . . goes on the View? This is not a serious man. In love with being President but utterly clueless when it comes to actually governing, leading the country. A failure in the job by ANY measure. 40 days to decide. What are you gonna do?"

This is VO/supers to the empty chair ad, that Romney has yet to produce.

Hagar, yes, Obama's "eye-candy" comment was bizarre. I can't imagine saying such a thing, but I don't have the face and figure of Narcissus. If I heard a man say something like that at a dinner party, I'd join with my fellows in slamming him for every visual flaw...and the men I know would have laughed, and we'd have assumed that anyone who said such a thing is either making fun of his own looks or just a fool. Obama is too handsome for the latter, so I guess he's a fool.

I don't like them but the Dems are the political pros of the two parties. Unlike the Republicans who tend to pile on their candidate when their candidate comes under attack regardless of the fairness of the attack, whereas the Dems will rally around their candidate and viciously use whatever weapon available to counter the attack.

The Tea Party members who fought the Romney candidacy are now working their butts off to get him elected. The country-club Republicans are trying now to defeat Romney, and probably for the reason that Romney will owe TP members a lot for the success that will be his when every loving one of the millions who dread Obama and his phony recovery and disastrous foreign policy turn out to vote his sorry ass out of office.

If Romney really wants to fire things up a bit he should take a page from the Great Liberal God FDR and require all able bodied people on 'entitlements' to work for their money. Put them to clean the streets, fill the potholes and repair the infrastructure. No work, no money. Screw up at the job, get fired and fend for yourself. The unions won't like it but what a spectacle that would be, the unions going ape over this proposal.I would guess the able bodied 'entitled' rolls would shrink by 80% over a three year period.

I find the current Obama triumphalism peculiar. What has changed? And how has it helped Obama?

No, I don't like Obama but the economy (the #1 issue with Americans) is still in the dumps and our Middle East embassies were just overrun on a 9-11 anniversary and an American ambassador dragged out of a safe house and murdered. It's been two weeks and our leaders have not explained what happened and the FBI remains unable to investigate. Meanwhile Obama seems to be doing little but TV appearances and one UN speech.

On the other hand a tape of Romney from a few months ago was released in which he said something about 47%.

How does this add up to Obama having a lock on the election?

Have the American swing voters arrived at some viscreal decision against Romney? Has the American media, including the polls, become so "weaponized" against Romney as in this Politico article that this is all we hear?

It's bad enough when the MSM plays that game-- one expects it of them. What I can't fathom is the widespread criticism of Romney by the northeastern brain trust, the so-called Republican establishment. It's as if they're miffed at not getting to run the party any more.

@phx,They may be spreading it but they didn't create it. [Romney]'s not real likeable.

Hm.Romney gave away millions in charity. He took on the difficult job of getting the Salt Lake Olympics back on budget/schedule, and turned down a salary for doing so.He shut down his business to find a missing girl.He saved people from possible drowning.He has a self-deprecating, wry sense of humor (I don't know they don't have windows you can open on aircraft...).Self-confident and self-assured.

Whereas Obama:- whines about people picking on him.- uses veiled insults against women.- surreptitiously flips off people while speaking.- insults people to their face by distorting their words/views, but only does so in situations the person is unable to respond back- has a caustic/sarcastic sense of humor that is based on insulting people- is prickly, sensitive, thin-skinned, and overly arrogant about his abilities (thinks he is better than any of his staff at the jobs he hired them for)

So in light of President Obama's characteristics, if you think Romney is not very likable, that says far more about you than about Romney.

"For all the talk about whether Mitt Romney should distance himself from George W. Bush –and the policies of the last GOP White House — a new survey shows that the former president actually has better favorability ratings than the Republican nominee."

George Soros had to reverse his position on campaign contributions and pump millions to Democratic candidates--ones that were being sold as having a lock on the election. Does this sound as if Democrats think they have it in the bag?

Agree this is what they're trying to do. The crudest of playground psychology. "Romney has cooties!" Agree with Palladian that "there isn't a problem [with Romney], but a lot of people are working very hard trying to create one."

It is fascinating to watch from the UK. this election play out. Here in the UK, many have lost interest in voting as whoever is elected seems to conveniently 'forget' what they promised in the run up to the election. Good Luck Guys and God Bless America.

It is fascinating to watch from the UK. this election play out. Here in the UK, many have lost interest in voting as whoever is elected seems to conveniently 'forget' what they promised in the run up to the election. Good Luck Guys and God Bless America.

Jay Retread: Fen, learn to read. "Elected" refers to Romney. Ford is used as just a point of reference in time.

Actually you need to learn to express yourself better. And not get snarky when the fault is yours. As Matt said: "the X-iest Y since Z... implies that Z was Y. It's a bit of rhetorical sloppiness that's causing the confusion."

This likability herring is a bunch of crap. As someone mentioned above, it's the popular kids trying to exert power by telling everyone not to like someone.

It lacks substance and makes no sense.

It also smacks of desperation.

This constant drumbeat of 'Obama has it won, just go home.' Is just so much wishful thinking--especially this early.

They know people are going to start to pay attention soon and if they can't create an air of inevitability, people might actually look at the job Obama is doing.

Only an extreme partisan can defend the president's record. If a republican were in office the New York Times would be calling for his resignation on page one based on1) the economy2) the attack on our embassy3) our downgraded credit rating

So, they really only have one thing.

'Don't look at what Obama has done, look at how awful Mitt is.'

They are desperate.

Mitt looks to me like a guy who is boringly honest and wholesome. Only fun if you're not a cynic.

A guy who really lives his faith and practices genuine charity with his money and time.

He's proven himself a competent and successful businessman. And frankly, business is a lot less forgiving than politics when it comes to competence.

He's also a skilled politician and has chosen to leadership, substance and honesty.

He's faced withering attacks from a press that is squarely and blatently stumping for the president. Their service should be listed as an in-kind campaign contribution.

All of this and the race is essentially tied.

If it continues this way until Mitt's moneybomb of ads hits next month, the tide will turn hard.

Mitt will win and have coattails.

Mitt's not a problem. He's a solid candidate who, for reasons I can't begin to understand, is willing to put up with all of the abuse the media and democrats heap on him for having the gall to disagree with them and be willing to run for office to back it up.

God bless him for doing it. I believe he's a good man. All the media noise, crass distortions of his words and his record are so over the top, people are losing faith in the media rather than Mitt.

They have taken partisanship so far that normal people are disgusted.

We're disgusted with the kind of drivel like the Samuel L Jackson profanity-lace silliness that other entertainers think is edgy.

We're disgusted with the trashing of honest success in the private sector as suspect, while success as a community organizer or government employee is somehow noble.

We're disgusted with the snark, the changing the subject, the distraction and maligning of a good man's character. All because even Obama's supporters know he can't run on what he's done, or even what he plans to do.

Because we'd be disgusted by that, too.

This is all my opinion, so feel free to tell me how I'm wrong or parse my words and distract from my point--because that's what you folks are reduced to--but my point remains: Obama is doing a horrible job and needs to be replaced. Mitt looks pretty competent from where I stand.

He survived a bruising primary and has run a pretty good campaign, considering how hard the media is working to help the president.

No, I don't see much to defend in Obama. I don't understand the nasty personal attacks that come along with defending him.

Frankly, most of us don't want to be bothered at all with this kind of stuff.

We SCREAMED at the top of our lungs in the spring that this is what we would get. And in return, all we got was abuse thrown our way.

Romney had been running for six years in the spring and for all of those years, he never could get above 20-30 percent support. And he was fine with that. His primary campaign strategy was that he was inevitable. And people bought it.

And now in the general, his campaign strategy is exactly the same -- he's inevitable, he's not Obama, and who else are you going to vote for, and that's about it. His entire campaign has been merely one of "I'm better than Obama because, well, because I am, because I worked at Bain and I ran the Olympics one time." Competence, not ideology. And boring competence at that. But not really all that competent after all since he can't get anyone excited for him.

People will choose a dynamic ideologue despot over a boring competence guy every time. Especially women. They would rather go out with the guy who smashes them in the face than the dweeb.

And just like many of us also predicted, it is exactly the same Establishment people who pushed Romney, who demanded that he be the nominee, who are now abandoning him, just like they did with McCain -- push him on us and then run away.

We SCREAMED at the top of our lungs in the spring that this is what we would get. And in return, all we got was abuse thrown our way.

Your screaming was heard and rejected.

I've always thought Romney was compromise--an Establishment Republican one step removed from Jeb Bush. He needed someone with Tea Party credentials (especially after dissing Sarah Palin) and that move was Paul Ryan. I am disappointed that I don't hear more from Ryan on the trail, but I live in California, a state which is scrupulously avoided expect when it's time to refill coffers.

Fine Fen, if Romney is elected president he will be the most liberal Republican EVER ELECTED!!!

Are you sure about that? Have you never heard of Nixon (EPA, price controls, etc)? What about W (NCLB, Patriot Act, Medicare expansion, interventionist foreign wars, McCain-Feingold, and generally increasing the size and scope of the federal government making it ever more intrusive)? Their records of accomplishment read very well as "liberal" (which actually means left-wing the way you are using it).

I get the feeling you don't know too much about conservatism and modern "liberalism", but only understand the tribal mentality of democrats vs. republicans.

Yet another Althouse lemming proves he is totally disconnected from reality.

This is exactly the type of mindless, empty response you've come to exemplify. Bravo!

You too suffer terribly from not understanding the ideologies of conservatism, nor modern "liberalism", but understand very well the tribalism of "us vs. them". And as a good little demobot, you want desperately to believe that anyone with an (R) after their name was a conservative and anyone with a (D) a "liberal".

Of course it is. Obama has been lying his ass off about the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2012. When he heard about the attack on Steven's embassy... Obama went to bed. Then he flew to Vegas for a fund raiser.

People will choose a dynamic ideologue despot over a boring competence guy every time. Especially women. They would rather go out with the guy who smashes them in the face than the dweeb.

No, it's the whole "eye candy" aspect of Obama and the way he appeals to women and gays--the same cohort who so viciously derided Palin--perhaps because they sensed that she was eye candy to men. It's all pretty juvenile and predictable.

Ken - Let me help you out here little buddy. If you want to believe that George Bush is a liberal, that's your choice. The facts don't support that viewpoint, but no one is going to force you to base your opinions on facts. Believe whatever makes you happy, okay?

I prefer reality. In the real world where facts and reason matter, sane people realize that conservatism and liberalism are not the only political philosophies, that the definitions of conservative and liberal are not static, and that not being a conservative does not make one a liberal. George Bush is not a liberal nor does he have liberal tendencies. It's not my responsibility to hold your hand and lead you back to reality. I'm content to chuckle at the thoughts that fill your fantasy world.

And yet you fail to point out any facts that don't support that view... again.

the definitions of conservative and liberal are not static

This is of course what all lefties desperately want to believe, that words have different meanings, especially if it's clear that the words read as written mean something completely different that what lefties want them to believe. For example, the sentence "congress shall make no law" falls on deaf ears when lefties are concerned, which is why lefties hate the Citizens United decision. That decision reaffirmed the people's right to free expression, something lefties have a hard time with.

George Bush is not a liberal nor does he have liberal tendencies

Except that he expanded the federal government's authority over the education system (NCLB). He expanded the welfare state through Medicare. He intruded aggressively and militarily in foreign countries. He endorsed McCain-Feingold (attacking free speech, which was thankfully overturned in Citizens United). He enacted the Patriot Act expanding the police state and surveillance, keeping an eye on the hoi-polloi the left distrusts so much. He back crony capitalism, bailing out banks tying the financial sector tighter to the federal government.

All of those things are leftwing agendas and are the primary accomlishments of Bush's administration.

Yashu wrote:Agree this is what they're trying to do. The crudest of playground psychology. "Romney has cooties!" Agree with Palladian that "there isn't a problem [with Romney], but a lot of people are working very hard trying to create one."

Even if they have to doctor video/ audio to do so.

I shouldn't be shocked at this kind of thing anymore, and yet it still shocks me. This can no longer bear the designation "journalism," not even figuratively.

its bad enough if this were simply a mistake, but they clearly typed in the caption Ryan to make it,seem like Romney was acting small,because they were chanting ryans name when they should have been chanting Romney, when in fact he was being gentlemanly and trying to get the changers to include Ryan in the chants. Fuck you media. And Morning Joe, the biggest fuck you goes to you. Even after having this pointed out to him he still tweets as if it's a abrication. Joe, you ain't no conservative. You are a lying douchebag.the people around you are to be expected, but you are supposed conservative in the room so should know better. I'm sick and tired of the media trudging out these fake assholes pretending to speak conservative who then go out and vote for Obama and carry his water like the good little democratic operatives we know them to be.Can we please get an official excommunication for some of these people? David brooks, Peggy noonan, buckleys retarded son, Morning Joe et al. There should be a byline under all their work that says"not real republicans" or "not real republican, but plays one on tv". Anything less is pure dishonesty on the part of the media. No conservative should EVER appear on morning Joes show again until he says that hes a fraud and apologizes for wasting our time.